Dedicated to the advancement of the State of Indiana by re-affirming our state's constitutional principles that: all people are created equal; no religious test shall be imposed on our public officials and offices of trust; and no special privileges or immunities shall be granted to any class of citizens which are not granted on the same terms to all citizens.
Advance Indiana, LLC. Copyright 2005-16. All rights reserved.

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Another Proponent of SJR-7 Insults Our Intelligence

In an opinion column appearing in the Star's editorial section, Rep. Woody Burton (R-Greenwood) accuses House Speaker Pat Bauer and Democratic members of the Rules and Legislative Procedures Committee of playing politics with SJR-7 and impugns five of Indiana's leading companies for opposing the amendment. Burton writes:

Unfortunately, due to political games played out by Democratic leadership, Hoosiers will not have the opportunity in 2008 to vote on the constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

In 2004, Speaker of the House Pat Bauer refused to allow debate and a final vote in on the marriage amendment. Due to his position on the issue, he was given the Legislator of the Year award by the Indiana Civil Liberties Union.

In order for this resolution to be added to the Indiana Constitution, it must pass two separately elected General Assemblies. Once passed, the citizens of Indiana can vote on the referendum during the next general election.

In 2005, the amendment passed both the House and the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support.

In October 2006, Bauer promised that if Democrats controlled the House in 2007, he would ensure that the issue be debated and promised a final vote on the House floor. This session, the bill was assigned to the House Legislative Rules and Procedures Committee, a committee that is designed to carry out the will of the speaker. The amendment was defeated by a vote of 5-5, with all five no's coming from Democrats. All five of these Democrats voted "yes" on the same amendment only two years ago.

Burton, of course, makes no attempt to explain the serious concerns raised by nonpartisans about the impact of the second paragraph of the amendment, which went well beyond defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Instead, he attacks Indiana businesses which dared to express their reservations about that language. Burton writes:

I find it interesting that out of the 250,000 businesses in the state, only five came forward and testified against the amendment. I also find it interesting that these five spoke upon the speaker's solicitation. What is more, there were only a few employees, mainly from human resources departments, who spoke on the matter. Using the other 27 states as examples, there is no evidence that this amendment would hurt Hoosier employers or their employees.

"No evidence that this amendment would hurt Hoosier employers or their employees?" I'll leave these words from Ronald Gifford for Burton to ponder:

Now, here's a correlation you might not have considered. Do you know how many of the 10 best-performing states in the New Economy Index have constitutional bans on same-sex marriage? Only two – Virginia and Colorado, coming in at number 8 and 9 on the charts. By contrast, 18 of the bottom 25 states in the Index have adopted marriage amendments – and Indiana was on the verge of becoming number 19 of that group.

So, for better or worse, the states without an amendment are richer and we’re poorer. Coincidence? You be the judge.

Hey, AI, why don't you try a tiny bit of honesty and provide the list of states that Gifford is referencing. When you do that, it will become abunduntly and immediately clear that there are lots of other factors playing into that issue. And marriage amendments are a blip on the radar screen, at best.

Frankly, I love watching your arguments get more extreme and ridiculous. I do miss your thoughtful analysis that used to be given to so many other issues. But if this blog is going to be the single issue rant that it is so quickly becoming, then so be it. You and Wilson can go knock yourselves out.

An anonymous nobody is threatening to deprive the blogmeister of the honor of being read by it? Quelle horreurs!

AdvanceIndiana owes its very name to the opposition to the bigotry of Eric Miller and his minions. Gary has done great work researching and exposing the workings of this modern-day Hoosier political Klan. We owe him greatly!

On some other issues, Welsh can be a racist prick.

If you want a doctrinaire rightwing ideological website, I suggest you stick with Matt Drudge.

Wilson said, "On some other issues, Welsh can be a racist prick." Your definition of a racist, Wilson, is anyone who criticizes your fair lady, Rep. Julia Carson, or any other other African-American politician for that matter. It is enjoyable watching you squirm when that criticsm comes from either Abdul or RiShawn, who are able to set aside the issue of race to point out shortcomings of Carson or Monroe Gray, for example. You can't accuse them of being racists so you reserve that label for me. If you haven't noticed, Wilson, you've been figured out by everyone. Hint--nothing you say carries any weight.

We are competing with several of these states for talent, particularly in the life sciences sector. Of course there are other factors that describe the success of these states (one factor might be the common thread of mountains and/or coastlines). So we're already at a disadvantage when we go head-to-head with these states for talent -- especially talented young people who increasingly want to live in tolerant and diverse communities, according to the research. Without natural resources or a robust entreprenurial economy to offer them, we put ourselves at a further disadvantage in recruiting this talent if they view Indiana as an intolerant place. Given the academic research on this point, and the practical experience of businesses trying to recruit people to come here, I don't think Gary's position is subject to serious challenge.

>Of course there are other factors that describe the success of these states (one factor might be the common thread of mountains and/or coastlines).

If you want to draw correlations, then there is none stronger than the one you just pointed out. The earlier posts note a split among this group of states regarding marriage amendments. There is NO split on the observation above. It is not that a large percentage of these states have mountains or coastlines, it is that EVERY ONE OF THESE STATES has mountains or coastlines. Some, in fact, have both. So here we are again, ignoring the obvious in search of something less certain to prove our beliefs.

>Without natural resources or a robust entreprenurial economy to offer them, we put ourselves at a further disadvantage in recruiting this talent if they view Indiana as an intolerant place.

Despite the worshippers of Richard Florida, there is not any clear "research" that this is true or, if it is, that it has any distinguishable impact in comparison to other, more obvious things, like coasts, mountains and warm climates. (When you see states like Delaware on the list, you can also add in tax policies as a possible factor.)

What is not mentioned by the Richard Florida worshippers is the desire by young professional parents to find safe and wholesome (yes WHOLESOME) environments for their kids to grow up in. How often have we each met someone who was bellyaching because of their recent transfer to Indiana, but after a couple of years and a kid or two, they had decided that this was the best place for them and had decided to stay, even if meant changing jobs from the company that actually brought them here.

>Given the academic research on this point...

The problem is, you haven't "given" it. Where is it? I'm the only one to even mention a source, and that's not a strong one. Where is this supposed "research?"

>and the practical experience of businesses trying to recruit people to come here

Let's talk again about coasts, mountains and climate. I know a lot of the employers who have experienced these recruitment challenges, and those three things are the clear and dominant reasons for those challenges. Not one - not one single one - has ever mentioned the loss of a recruit due to the "intollerance" of our state. Quite to the contrary, in fact, I have heard countless stories of recruiting efforts that have turned to the positive after the recruit learned more about Indiana's nurturing and wholesome environment for raising families. What this blog swo often advocates runs directly counter to that common experience.

>I don't think Gary's position is subject to serious challenge.

It's not up for serious challenge only because it is not a serious proposition in the first place.

Wilson, please provide an explanation of blacks carrying white supremacist baggage. Are you referring to individuals from the Indianapolis black community and elsewhere that made Unigov possible. I recall the questions raised by many when former Attucks High School educator and basketball coach (of Oscar Robertson etc) was recruited by Keith Bulen to run on the GOP ticket for State Representative at a time when Crowe's vote was used amoungst others in the General Assembly to pass Unigov. Crowe, in effect, helped the Marion County GOP maintain a hold on the county for about 36 years with Unigov's passage.Are we to pity Ray Crowe anymore than we should pity any of our current local black leaders that are content to suck from the teat of Indianapolis' white ruling class?Yes, the party label changed when Democrats took control of the mayor's office but once you brush off the thin veneer of that label you still see the money being handled and deals getting cut with the same white powerbase that have always ran this town.And what does the black community get for the trade? Corrupt elected black officials, skyrocketing crime, death, despair and hopelessness in the inner city that a thousand pea shake houses will never fix.When even Beurt SerVaas supports a amn like Peterson then you know that the tee shirt might say Democrat but the man wearing it's an old school Republican.And who exactly have YOU been carrying the bags for in this county my dear Wilson?

I was trained in Indianapolis politics by Black Republican leader Rev. A. J. Brown and his civil rights team. I have proudly associated with them ever since -- I stand with Bill Crawford and Julia Carson, experienced and responsible leaders. The community knows, supports and elects them. So do I...

You can't be serious Wilson! Exactly my point. "Polite Protest" I think they called it when the blacks in Indianapolis cut political deals with the whites to gain what pittance they could from the party in charge. All your mentors were lightweights and laughed at by the real civil rights workers who were in the real trenches spilling blood so you could vote!So we must assume that you believe Ray Crowe was actually Jim Crow? And Crawford, bought and paid for by Bulen. Carson doesn't even deserve a comment.

"Wilson... All your mentors were lightweights and laughed at by the real civil rights workers who were in the real trenches spilling blood so you could vote!"

The Rev. Andrew J. Brown was an accomplished leader; his memory shouldn't be trashed by an anonymous hate filled monger. The truth:

HON. ANDREW JACOBS, JR.

in the House of Representatives

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1996

Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, he was the only minister of the Gospel in history to deliver a second opening prayer at the House of Representatives in the same calendar day. But his claim to the profound respect and affection of all Americans is that he was one of Dr. Martin Luther King's top lieutenants in the peaceful revolution to make real the ideals of the bloody American Revolution.

SUPPORT ADVANCE INDIANA

It takes many hours of time to publish content for Advance Indiana. If you enjoy reading the content of this blog, please help out by contributing. You can click on the "Make A Donation" button below to support Advance Indiana by using PayPal. Thanks to all of those readers who have made contributions in the past and continue to support this blog with your contributions. If you would rather support the blog using an alternative source of payment or would like to advertise on this blog, e-mail me at gwelsh@indy.rr.com for more information.

Blogflux

Subscribe To

Comment Policy

Advance Indiana allows you to post comments via this blog subject to the guidelines set forth herein. You understand that any comments you post are your own and are not those of Advance Indiana. You further understand that Advance Indiana is not responsible for the content of any external sites referenced in your comments. Unlawful, harassing, defamatory, abusive, threatening, harmful, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, racially offensive, or otherwise objectionable comments are not acceptable. If you think any content posted or otherwise included in Advance Indiana violates the guidelines set forth herein, then please alert Advance Indiana.
Advance Indiana reserves the right to pre-screen, edit, and remove any post as it deems appropriate. You specifically acknowledge that Advance Indiana has no obligation to display any post submitted or otherwise provided via Advance Indiana.